Nobody uses my model and likely never will, in it's basic way.
Do you know why?
Because your model is useless nonsense.
They will still use fictional gravity in place of it.
You mean real gravity, which has been experimentally verified and unlike your garbage actually makes sense, at least as much as any of the other fundamental forces.
Whoever takes my model seriously will be the one's that actually take the time to understand it all.
Again, I have tried doing that and you can't even explain a simple thing like why do things fall.
One of the big problems with you is that if anyone doesn't just accept your nonsense you dismiss them as if they aren't trying to understand. You never even consider the possibility that what you are saying literally makes no sense and that you are making massive leaps where you jump from one thing to another with no connection at all.
You don't have a theory, you don't even have a hypothesis. You have a broken model which makes no sense.
But mass do not attract masses unless they're on a pivot, when level.
So you just ignore all the other experiments which have shown that they do attract regardless?
Every properly made experiment that I know of to test if masses attract other masses has returned a positive result.
There is no reason to think it magically only works downwards for Earth, or horizontal when on a pivot, especially as it has been tested in other ways.
What results does your fictional gravity give out?
I don't have any fictional gravity. We have real gravity. I have already explained what kind of results to expect, and even explained plenty of things with you.
Measured weight of mass does vary with pressure.
Weight or mass?
Mass has no variation with pressure. Weight only varies due to buoyancy, as predicted by gravity. It is not the variation you need.
Lowering the pressure increases the weight, even though less atmosphere is displaced and thus your nonsense indicates it should decrease.
A barometer clearly shows this
No it doesn't.
A barometer relies upon the weight of the mercury being balanced by the pressure of the atmosphere or the pressure differential.
If the weight of the mercury varied with pressure as your model should indicate, then the height of the column would remain the same.
The function of a barometer requires gravity (or some other force, unrelated to air pressure) to provide the weight of the mercury in the tube and thus a pressure at the bottom of the mercury in the tube and thus balance the pressure outside.
Yes they do.
Man you love your lies don't you?
I have explained clearly what is expected from a simple analysis of the "basics" of your model, and that is with accepting your massive logical leaps.
That doesn't match reality at all.
You have no justification for any of the results.
But again, that isn't surprising considering you have no justification for why things fall in the first place.
I'm defending it very well. You not quite understanding it is the problem from your side...not mine.
No, you are repeatedly getting your ass handed to you and are just refusing to admit it.
You ignoring your model and "explanations" repeatedly being refuted doesn't mean you are defending it.
What are the predicted effects of your gravity?
Just outline it all so I'm absolutely sure about it.
We are walking side by side and you have the tools to show me the predicted effects of your gravity.
Try not to cop out of it.
I already have, so quit asking the same question as a cop out.
You know there are no experiments to backup your nonsense, as you almost certainly know that it is nonsense.
Displacing the atmosphere is the origin.
No it isn't.
Displacing the atmosphere provides no basis for a downwards force.
I may be missing a lot of stuff in my explanations
Yes, basically the entirety of it.
You have the start, the alleged basis of your model, with the atmosphere being displaced.
You have the end, where you get a downwards force.
But you are missing literally everything in between to explain how this downwards force arises from displacing the atmosphere.
but I have to keep using analogies
No you don't.
Your analogies aren't helping your case at all.
The problem isn't me not understanding, it is your model making no sense and you having no justification.
Trying to use an analogy doesn't avoid that issue.
In fact, your analogies typically hurt your case.
This is because you often go to water and buoyancy.
Most people at least understand that displacing a volume of a fluid results in a buoyant force based upon the density and volume displaced.
Some people even understand this origin from the pressure gradient in the fluid, which in turn is based upon gravity.
But this is always an upwards force (with the sole exception of things like a centrifuge), never down as your model needs.
Your Earth does not fit into any simple observations. That's the point.
No, that isn't the point. That is a blatant lie, repeated by people that don't care about the truth.
They are yet to provide a single example where a RE doesn't actually fit rather than it just being their pathetic strawman doesn't fit or a blatant lie about reality.
The real observations basically scupper a globe by literal logic and literal sight...etc.
Yet you, and all the other FEers have been completley unable to provide any.
I'm simply telling it how I see it by process of elimination
You have provided no reason to eliminate anything, while there is ample reason to eliminate your nonsense.
I don't recall any flat Earth theorists bothering to look into it. Maybe it bores them. But at least they don't come in to try and scupper it.
Or maybe they realise it is garbage and don't want to support it at all, but at the same time not want to attack it for fear of retaliation.
Globalists try to scupper it
No, we "globalists" repeatedly destroy it with rational arguments.
To learn it or to ensure people don't start to grasp it?
Because we care about the truth.
If you have a model which actually makes sense, we want to know about it.
If it is just delusional nonsense, then we will attack it because all it takes for BS to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
If you would keep your delusional nonsense to yourself, no one would give a damn.
But here we are arguing it.
Think about that.
Not much thought is required.
You have no defense for your nonsense so you need to pretend people showing it to be nonsense somehow magically makes it true.
I ask what it is and you explain that it's going to show mass being attracted to mass.
I ask what it proves.
You say gravity.
I ask how you can prove it's gravity
Again, do you understand what gravity is?
At the simple level, it is mass being attracted to other mass.
But again, yet another pathetic distraction to avoid admitting you have no thing to back up your nonsense.
A simple barometer is one experiment.
Which completely refutes your nonsense as it shows weight is not dependent upon pressure as your nonsense requires.
It is doing what it's expected from my side.
Yet you are completely unable to explain how it magically manages to do so.
I think there's enough experiments that prove it.
There are literally none.
You have provided literally none.
Tell me about this gravitational constant and this 1% or 2% discrepancy
The gravitational constant is a constant of proportionality in an inverse square law, specifically the one for gravity, i.e. F=GMm/r^2.
It is akin to that for the electrostatic force, F=kq1q2/r^2.
The 1 to 2% discrepancy isn't actually a discrepancy. It is experimental error as the results often performed especially by students don't use accurate enough equipment to measure it to the required level of accuracy.
The force is not gravity because gravity is nonsense.
No, it is gravity, because that is what gravity is defined as.
You dismiss gravity as nonsense because it shows your delusions to be wrong.
Even if you don't want to call it gravity, it clearly shows masses attract other masses, i.e. GRAVITY!
But I have explained it with denpressure. The whirlpool effect.
You have explained nothing.
You can't even something as basic as why things fall.